Talk:Israel Katz

Quote

@Number 57: What do you mean its undue? The content added is a quote, its a fact that he said that quote, its not a point of view.--Makeandtoss (talk) 21:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss: A single quote from Katz from 2015 now makes up around 20% of the article. This is clearly undue. Furthermore, Tanbircdq clearly has an agenda, adding quotes from numerous Israeli politicians to their articles. If we are unable to resolve this here, I will be raising with other admins.

Can I also ask what the relationship is between you two? It seems very strange that Makeandtoss would randomly find (and revert) other editors removing Tanbircdq's material. Then the two of you show up on this article again within 10 minutes of each other. I would like to WP:AGF, but this topic area is plauged with sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry, and this looks fairly like the latter. Number 57 22:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

You are not making any sense, the WP:UNDUE talks about points of view. Plus, I don't really care if it was Tanbircdq who put the material, I just find an urge to revert whoever removes sourced content just because it makes his role models look bad (not necessarily talking about you).--Makeandtoss (talk) 22:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Is that so? Perhaps you could tell us how you found your way to this fairly obscure (around 20 views a day) article? Someone should report these two, travelling together over multiple articles of living persons inserting and then edit warring over cherrypicked quotes. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:31, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

(e/c) Hmmm, that's not really answering the question of how you came across the edits to revert.

With regards to undue weight, the quotes are clearly designed to show Katz in a bad light and giving this kind of prominence to them in a relatively short article is inappropriate. I recommend reading the WP:BALASPS of the WP:UNDUE section if you are still having problems understanding this issue, specifically the sentence "For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." Number 57 22:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

An editor restores sourced content and now ad hominem accusations follow.

The content is direct quotes made by the subject cited from independent, reliable sources. In what way exactly does this fit into "isolated events, criticisms, or news reports"?

No More Mr Nice Guy, you threatened to report me based on your opinion that I violated 1RR, make sure you also report/WP:BOOMERANG Number 57 who actually violated 1RR with the edits here and here. Tanbircdq (talk) 00:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

If you cannot see that this is undue and inappropriate editing, then I think wider involvement in this issue will be required. Number 57 22:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

There's been a failure to adequately explain why the content should be omitted from the article. The content is full quotes made by the subject whilst he was an elected government official in a public office. Full context for the quotes is provided in the independent, reliable secondary sources it is cited from.

I don't see how just because a subject has a "relatively short article" article that he's exempt from verified information being added about him because of the WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument that "the quotes are clearly designed to show Katz in a bad light".

The content maybe controversial and interpreted as indirectly critical but it is clearly factual and not POV. The content is verifiable, therefore, I don't see how it's inappropriate editing, but rather that leaving the content out lacks the objectivity of having a WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. I welcome any third opinion on the matter. Tanbircdq (talk) 17:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

It has been explained, but it seems you are adopting a WP:IDHT stance. It's quite clear you are editing articles with an agenda, and this has no place on Wikipedia. Please stop or I will bring this to the attention of other admins. Number 57 20:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I'll take it to ANI now. Number 57 22:12, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I'm trying to add a new views section on the page but it keeps getting removed. I can't understand why this wouldn't be allowed as many pages about people have this sort of section, especially politicians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.254.204 (talk) 17:04, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

You've been told why (WP:BALASPS). A more pertinent question is how, on your very first edit to Wikipedia, you managed to restore text that was removed from the article several months ago. Which account did you previously use, or who put you up to this? Number 57 17:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

That is your opinion and I think you're wrong. I think it gives the page balance rather then removing negative information because it looks bad on him.

Haha, who put me up to it??? Is that a serious question or are you being sarcastic? Well I wanted to add some quotes made by this guy then looked at the history and found more so thought that should be added as well. 86.154.254.204 (talk) 17:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

If you think that having 33% of the article body being dedicated to three thing's he's said when he's served for nearly 20 years as an MK and been a minister for nine years (and the views being aired aren't even relevant to his portfolios), then I suggest you don't have a clue what balance is. It's quite obvious that you're trying to get as much material into the article as possible to make him look bad. This is not a WP:COATRACK, so if you don't like him, go and have a rant on an internet forum about it. This is not the place. Number 57 20:49, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

There any many other politicians who've only been active for a few years that have large amounts of views about them on their pages. But your logic is having no comments about a politician whose been in office for nearly 30 years, how did you work that one out?

Why would it make him look bad? Did he retract any of the comments? Clearly not as obvious as you being either Mr Katz's political supporter, his PR rep or a paid Hasbara, or maybe all three. 86.154.254.204 (talk) 17:30, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

You know why, and that's the reason you added it. As for your final sentence, if I'd had the right to vote in Israel, I'd have voted for Meretz (or possibly Labor when Shelly Yachimovich was leader, so that should give you a clue about my opinions on Katz; the difference is that I don't allow my personal views to affect my editing (and as much as I'd love to get paid to edit, I'm not a hasbara either). I have the articles of many MKs on my watchlist, and see reasonably frequent attempts by editors to add unfavourable quotes from them on a range of subjects (not just the Palestinian conflict; I have recently had to revert several edits by someone obsessed with getting any rude remarks any MK has made about Reform Judaism into articles). My role is trying to keep Wikipedia neutral and balanced against drive-by editors with agendas. Number 57 22:01, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

No I don't know why? As far as I know he stands by all those comments so why would it make him look bad so please explain?

I couldn't really care less about what you claim your political affiliations to be.

You didn't answer why first question. There any many other politicians who've only been active for a few years that have large amounts of views about them on their pages. But your logic is having no comments about a politician who's been in office for nearly 30 years, what logic did you use to come to that conclusion?

How is this page neutral and balanced if there is no views or criticism section like many other pages? 86.154.254.204 (talk) 15:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

If you couldn't care less about my political affiliations, why did you bring them up in the first place? And please stop canvassing editors you know full well are not impartial. Number 57 08:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually the other users answered you very well. This does not belong in the article and See discussion below. Adding an undue lengthy criticism gives a false unbalanced derogatory view on a subject that does not portray the person as a whole. This is especially important when involving BLP. Wikipedia is not the place for this. Caseeart (talk) 05:15, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually only one other user tried to but avoided my question as have you. There are mnay pages with lengthy criticism sections (much more so than what I added), would you call one or two paragraphs lengthy? It being false or derogatory is a matter of opinion. Maybe more impartial users such as User:Dan Murphy, User:Zero0000, User:Sean.hoyland and User:Huldra can provide their opinion on the discussion below? 86.154.254.204 (talk) 08:32, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Other stuff exists is a weak argument. Almost all well written articles particularly BLP - editors will not allow this (don't bring proof from poor articles especially Arab Israeli conflict articles). You were already requested to stop canvasing and meatpuppetry that is against wikipedia policy. Also you specifically chose certain users. 02:53, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

That appears to be an essay about deleting pages, not sure how it's relevant here. Nope I think you're alone in thinking that pages don't have a views/criticism/controversy section. Most political pages have this if the views received media coverage. I didn't mention Arab Israeli conflict pages, interesting you automatically thought of that though. 86.154.254.204 (talk) 17:40, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Also editors have allowed it on Naz Shah's page as no one is making the 'undue' argument there where 45% of her page is about her recent comments? I bet you won't be making that argument there either. 86.154.254.204 (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Third Opinion

A third opinion has been requested. There are already three editors involved in this discussion. If this is a content dispute, try moderated dispute resolution at the dispute resolution noticeboard or a Request for Comments. If this is a conduct dispute, and I see warnings about ANI, take it to Arbitration Enforcement, which is quicker than ANI for issues that are within the scope of discretionary sanctions, and do not also file at DRN. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Moderated Dispute Resolution

A Third Opinion was requested ten days ago. Now moderated dispute resolution has been requested, but declined because there has been no recent discussion, and the discussion that there was largely involved conduct issues. Resume discussion on this talk page, or go to Arbitration Enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Whitewashing?

Brought here by an IP. This politician is known to have controversial views towards Palestinians, yet none of this is shown in the article. The undue argument holds no water here - this is an early stage article which editors are welcome to increase in all areas. The nature of his extremist views are widely reported, so should be in this article. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:01, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I've been asked on my page to give a comment here. I haven't the time to review the edits. I've read the talk page, and I'll make for the moment just one comment regarding the objections. Number57 has a point, but WP:BALASPS, WP:Undue, etc., cannot be used to keep out relevant information in the public record here like some of this. In an article as underdeveloped as this, any critical addition, which is normal for all political figures or those in the public limelight, could be read as WP:Undue simply in terms of the fact tha, given the sparseness of existing details re Katz, it immediately will look, speciously, disproportionate. What editors who wish to add such material should do is what other editors are not doing, adding also more general information not necessarily controversial, and in this way even that objection withers. They are not howevcer obliged to do this. An editing using the WP:Undue argument also should feel obliged to round out the portrait to make it fuller, and, in the context of controversies, more balanced thereby. There are more than 2 ways to cook an egg.Nishidani (talk) 17:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Having reread quickly the article, I see for example that his directive to get round the Court ruling against bus segregation is not mentioned. It may be 'controversial', but it is a noted aspect of his career. I won't be editing this article because of the WP:CANVASS issue, but it can be built up quite easily, and those interested in it should flesh it out further. Nishidani (talk) 17:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Same call as for my two colleagues here above.

I think that this material could be in the article and that WP:UNDUE cannot be used here.

Anyway, I assume he has many other views and the less controversial ones should be there too, not to give the feeling he would just be an extremist.

Pluto2012 (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Pluto2012 is right. You cant just add a lengthy controversial material that gives a negative look on a subject. Especially when it is a BLP living person. Caseeart (talk) 05:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

It is not exactly what I say. I say the material can be added but that all the remaining should be added too. Following the rules, the material can stady.

But given the tensions on these topics, my mind is that the one who add the controversies should add the other material as well (even if this is not mandatory). Pluto2012 (talk) 05:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding. The ip who added the material does not seem too interested to neutralize the article. Until/unless details about the subject are added - it will be an unbalanced article negative POV style. Caseeart (talk) 06:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Clearly :-)

Is there anything to tell about this politician ? I don't know him at all ? Was he talked about in the press ? Pluto2012 (talk) 07:18, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately the IP is attempting to bring the entire anti-Israel posse here (they've pinged a load more above)... But anyway, as I've said repeatedly, the two problems here are (a) that the article would be extremely unbalanced with the section readded in its current form. Editors are more than welcome to expand the article in general in order to make it fit in. Secondly, I think it's quite clear that the editors who have added this material (and many of those who have turned up from the canvassing attempts) are doing so in order to disparage the subject – there does not seem to be any interest in improving the article beyond adding the material to it to suit their agendas on Wikipedia.

Pluto, this guy has been a minister for more than a decade; I'm sure there is plenty to write about him if anyone actually interested... Number 57 08:58, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

The best should be the add the important stuff to write about him.

Note that after googling his name, he seems to me even more unfamous than what the IP added... He seems to be at the rightest possible in a democracy. Pluto2012 (talk) 17:01, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, I object to being called part of the "anti-Israel posse here", but having said that; I´m not particularly familiar with this guy. But if he has been a minister for more than a decade, then surely the article could/should be expanded, Huldra (talk) 21:19, 25 April 2016 (UTC) (PS: and no; any possible expansion will not be done by me... Huldra (talk) 21:23, 25 April 2016 (UTC))

The method of objection to new material is flawed. If the material is negative it is reverted as WP:Undue, but those who revert will not build the article to accentuate less controversial parts of his career, which means that WP:Undue is being manipulated to keep material that reflects the 'controvserial' side of his career. The proper course is to build up both aspects, and if you object to the negative side, you add to the positive side for balance. To just keep negative stuff out is to keep the article in a state of permanent underdevelopment. Nishidani (talk) 22:54, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I think it's clear that none of the editors who have added these quotes have any intention of building the article, and that the material is being added for a single purpose. Editors seeking to promote an agenda have no place here. Number 57 21:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Your argument applies to the ip that insists to add only negative information on a subject. This is a problem when insisting on only adding negative material on a subject and leaving out other important aspects. It is unfortunate that some ip's and even users use Wikipedia as a tool to defame certain people. Caseeart (talk) 02:23, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Ad hominem comments by Caseeart highlighting my assumed motivations are not relevant and just a way of avoiding the underlying issue here. You know this undue argument is baseless here. There could easily be a question mark over the agenda of those fighting tooth and nail to keep this information out in the name of 'balance' as well. 86.154.254.204 (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Being interested in writing about this guy includes people removing information too or are they only interested in removing information from the page? Or would that go against their natural inclination of keeping the page conveniently small? 86.154.254.204 (talk) 17:50, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Huldra, civility isn't 57's strongest point. So far he's told a user to go away with your agenda, told me to go have a rant on an internet forum and wholesale insulted fellow Wikipedia users by calling them anti-Israel. I think this bullying behaviour is unbecoming of Wikipedia.

User:Nishidani has hit the nail on the head, the page can't be improved, if information is continuously removed. People saying general information needs to be added should do that but not stop people from adding controversy/views information.

As User:Pluto2012 the guy has said lots of other worse things but none of it this important and useful information is on his Wikipedia page surprisingly. 86.154.254.204 (talk) 17:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

This isn't the ICC, so it'd be good for people to change the broken record with third rate lawyerisms. I think it's time to stop the narcissism, lift the censorship life jacket and unleash the beast! I have added some information to try and balance the page up, hopefully one of his acolytes don't delete it. 86.154.254.204 (talk) 21:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Notification of Canvasing and meatpuppetry

user 86.154.254.204 is repeatedly bringing in other selective users into the discussion. This is not allowed and please be aware of the rule before editing or stating your opinion on the talk page. There was also noted alleged sock-puppetry here. Caseeart (talk) 02:59, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Another tactical attempt at censorship to suppress healthy discussion when we're actually getting somewhere due to not being able to respond to valid points and back up the weak arguments to keep the information out of the article, don't be intimidated by it. 86.154.254.204 (talk) 17:57, 26 April 2016 (UTC)